Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Classification of prosthetics used in hernia repair based on weight and biomaterial

  • Review
  • Published:
Hernia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Purpose

The aim of this study was to classify the polymeric prosthetics used for hernia repair based on biomaterial composition and weight in an effort to clarify to surgeons what kinds of material they are dealing with and to provide a standardized system of categorization.

Materials and methods

An intensive research effort was carried out on prosthetics that are commercially available worldwide. We conducted a search of the medical literature and companies’ websites to find the weights and thicknesses of commercially available prosthetics. Where these data were lacking, we contacted manufacturers directly in order to render the research more complete. A total of 166 products were considered for classification based on biomaterial properties. Among these, a homogeneous group of 80 polypropylene monofilament knitted or woven prosthetics was selected for classification based on weight. Weights were provided for 70 prosthetics (87%), and both the weight and thickness was provided for 40 prosthetics (50%).

Results

Classification based on weight: Ultra-light <35 g/m2, Light ≥35 < 70 g/m2, Standard ≥70 < 140 g/m2, Heavy ≥140 g/m2. Classification based on biomaterial composition: simple (prosthetics made of one pure biomaterial); composite (prosthetics made of two or more different layers); combined (prosthetics made of two materials knitted or woven together); and biologic.

Conclusion

Weight and biomaterial classifications were proposed after an extensive analysis of commercially available prosthetics. The need for a common terminology is important to avoid misunderstandings among clinicians and technicians.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Melick DW (1942) Nylon sutures. Ann Surg 115:475–476

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Aquaviva D, Bounet P (1944) Cure d’une volumineuse eventration par plaque de Crinofil. Extraits Bull Soc Chir de Marseille 1944. quoted by Zagdoun J–Sordinas A, L’utilisation des plaques de nylon dans la chirurgie des hernies inguinales, Academie de Chirurgie, Sèance du 25 Nov 1959, 747–54

  3. Maloney GE, Gill WG, Barclay RC (1948) Operations for hernia: technique of nylon darn. Lancet 2:45–48

    Google Scholar 

  4. Usher FC, Wallace SA (1958) Tissue reaction to plastic: comparison of Nylon, Orlon, Teflon and Dacron. Arch Surg 76:997–999

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  5. Usher FC, Ochsner J, Tuttle LLD (1959) Marlex mesh: a new plastic mesh for replacing tissue defects, experimental studies. Am Surg 24(12):969–974

    Google Scholar 

  6. Usher FC (1961) Knitted Marlex mesh. An improved Marlex prosthesis for repairing hernias and other tissue defects. Arch Surg 82:771–773

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  7. King MW, Soares BM, Guidoin R (1994) The chemical, physical and structural properties of synthetic biomaterials used in hernia repair. In: Bendavid R (ed) Prostheses and abdominal wall hernias. Landes, Austin, pp 191–206

    Google Scholar 

  8. Klinge U, Klosterhalfen B, Schumpelick V (2001) Vypro®: a new generation of Polypropylene Mesh. In: Bendavid R et al (eds) Abdominal wall hernias: principles and management. Springer, New York, pp 286–291

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Udwadia TE (2007) Commercial mesh versus nylon mosquito net for hernia repair. A randomized double-blind study in Burkina Faso. World J Surg 31(4):858. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16983472]

    Google Scholar 

  10. Wilhelm TJ (2007) Sterilized mosquito net versus commercial mesh for hernia repair. an experimental study in goats in Mbarara/Uganda. Eur Surg Res 39(5):312–317. [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17595545]

  11. Clarke MG (2009) The use of sterilised polyester mosquito net mesh for inguinal hernia repair in Ghana. Hernia 13(2):155–159. doi:10.1007/s10029-008-0460-3. [http://www.springerlink.com/content/u147um764l3j4227/]

    Google Scholar 

  12. Schumpelick V, Klinge U, Rosch R, Junge K (2006) Light weight meshes in incisional hernia repair. J Min Access Surg 2(3):117–123

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Klingensmith ME, Chen LE, Glasgow SC, Goers TA (eds) (2007) Hernias. In: The Washington manual of surgery. Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, pp 442–452

  14. The significance of a mesh thickness in the operation of inguinal hernia (2007–2009) [http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00451893]

  15. ftp://ftp.polito.it/people/cesal/Polimeri_Medicina/Trombetta.pdf

  16. Klosterhalfen B, Junge K, Klinge U (2005) The lightweight and large porous mesh concept for hernia repair. Expert Rev Med Devices 2(1):103–117

    Google Scholar 

  17. Kraft B (2006) Meshes and mesh-fixation techniques in TAPP hernia-repair. Surg Laparosc Endosc Percutan Tech 16(6):448–449

    Google Scholar 

  18. Horstmann R (2006) Impact of polypropylene amount on functional outcome and quality of life after inguinal hernia repair by the TAPP procedure using pure, mixed, and titanium-coated meshes. World J Surg 30:1–8

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Lauscher JC (2008) Total extraperitoneal hernioplasty: does the long-term clinical course depend on the type of mesh? J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech 18:6–9

    Google Scholar 

  20. Karsten J (2002) Functional and morphologic properties of a modified mesh for inguinal hernia repair. World J Surg 26(12):1472–1480

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Schmidbauer S, Ladurner R, Hallfeldt KK, Mussack T (2005) Heavy-weight versus low-weight polypropylene meshes for open sublay mesh repair of incisional hernia. Eur J Med Res 10:247–253

    PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  22. Schug-Paß C, Tamme C, Sommerer F, Tannapfel A, Lippert H, Köckerling F (2008) A lightweight, partially absorbable mesh (Ultrapro) for endoscopic hernia repair: experimental biocompatibility results obtained with a porcine model. Surg Endosc 22:1100–1106

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Holzheimer RG (2004) First results of Lichtenstein hernia repair with Ultrapro-mesh as cost saving procedure—quality control combined with a modified quality of life questionnaire (SF-36) in a series of ambulatory operated patients. Eur J Med Res 9(6):323–327

    Google Scholar 

  24. Khan LR, Liong S, de Beaux AC, Kumar S, Nixon SJ (2010) Lightweight mesh improves functional outcome in laparoscopic totally extra-peritoneal inguinal hernia repair. Hernia 14:39–45

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

  25. Smietański M, Bigda J, Zaborowski K, Worek M, Sledziński Z (2009) Three-year follow-up of modified Lichtenstein inguinal hernioplasty using lightweight poliglecaprone/polypropylene mesh. Hernia 13:239–242

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Zieren J, Neuss H, Ablassmaier B, Müller JM (2002) Adhesions after intraperitoneal mesh repair in pigs: Prolene™ vs. Vypro™. J Laparoendosc Adv Surg Tech A 12(4):249–252

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. Tamme C, Garde N, Klingler A, Hampe C, Wunder R, Köckerling F (2005) Totally extraperitoneal inguinal hernioplasty with titanium-coated lightweight polypropylene mesh: early results. Surg Endosc 19(8):1125–1129

    Google Scholar 

  28. Anderson JR (2006) Ultralightweight Polypropylene mesh for abdominal wall hernia repair. Annual Conference of the British Hernia Society, Abstract Book, British Hernia Society, Nottingham

    Google Scholar 

  29. Cobb WS et al (2006) Textile analysis of heavy weight, mid-weight, and light weight polypropylene mesh in a porcine ventral hernia model. J Surg Res 136(1):1–7

    Google Scholar 

  30. Earle DB, Mark LA (2008) Prosthetic material in inguinal hernia repair: how do I choose? Surg Cl N Am 88:179–201

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Cobb WS, Peindl RM, Zerey M, Carbonell AM, Heniford BT (2009) Mesh terminology 101. Hernia 13:1–6

    Article  PubMed  CAS  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This paper concerning the classification of prosthetics used in hernia repair has been developed with the co-operation with Herniamesh Srl, [Via Fratelli Meliga 1/C, Chivasso (TO), Italy].

Declaration

The authors apologize in advance for any imprecision, oversight or omission about products and companies and kindly request that companies contact them with any suggestions or comments that will further improve upon the database. A.C. declares that he received no grant support for this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Surgical Department, Clinica Cellini, Turin, Italy

    A. Coda

  2. Herniamesh S.r.l., Chivasso, Turin, Italy

    R. Lamberti & S. Martorana

Authors
  1. A. Coda
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. R. Lamberti
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. S. Martorana
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to A. Coda.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Coda, A., Lamberti, R. & Martorana, S. Classification of prosthetics used in hernia repair based on weight and biomaterial. Hernia 16, 9–20 (2012). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-011-0868-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10029-011-0868-z

Keywords

Search

Navigation